Equitable Open-Source for web3

“The tools that build the internet have steeped too long. For the past two decades, big tech has made trillions off the generosity of visionary developers and web pioneers… never thanking, never mentioning, and certainly never paying. At tea, we’re brewing something to change that by enabling developers (you) to continue doing what you love, while earning what you deserve….

We’re calling on all open?source devs to authenticate their Github with tea.


Developers who have contributed to OSS will be entitled to a variety of rewards, including minted NFT badges to honor your work so far. This is your chance to be an early member of our community: take a sip while it’s hot!…”

Developing tools and practices to promote open and efficient science

“In this talk, I’ll introduce three new tools that aim to improve the efficiency of researchers’ work and the accumulation of knowledge. I’ll argue that minimizing extra workload and increasing the ease of use have key importance at the introduction of new research practices. The tools that I’ll share are:

The Transparency Checklist, a consensus-based general ShinyApp checklist to improve and document the transparency of research reports;
Tenzing, a solution to simplify the CRediT-based documentation and reporting the contributions to scholarly articles; and
the Multi-analyst guidance, a consensus-based guide for conducting and documenting multi-analyst studies….”

Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) Formalized as ANSI/NISO Standard | NISO website

“The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) today announces its publication of the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) as an ANSI/NISO standard, Z39.104-2022. The taxonomy, which was originally developed in 2014, describes 14 roles that represent the typical range of contributors to scientific scholarly outputs, and that can be used to enable recognition and facilitate transparency to the myriad contributions to research in our increasingly networked scholarly ecosystem. CRediT is already in use by more than 50 organizations, a majority of which are scholarly publishers, collectively representing thousands of journals….”

Open science at EMBL: a transparent way of working | EMBL

“EMBL has released a new Open Science Policy as part of its ongoing commitment to drive trust, transparency, and more inclusive research across the life sciences….


The Open Science Policy will expand on existing practice, and contribute to positive culture change across EMBL and more widely. To ensure this, the policy covers research assessment and fair attribution of credit. The policy also puts in place guidelines for EMBL staff regarding open and timely access to research results via publications, data, and software….

The State of Open Data 2021

Key findings from this year’s survey

73% support the idea of a national mandate for making research data openly available
52% said funders should make the sharing of research data part of their requirements for awarding grants
47% said they would be motivated to share their data if there was a journal or publisher requirement to do so
About a third of respondents indicated that they have reused their own or someone else’s openly accessible data more during the pandemic than before
There are growing concerns over misuse and lack of credit for open sharing

Industry not harvest: Principles to minimise collateral damage in impact assessment at scale | Impact of Social Sciences

“As the UK closes the curtains on the Research Excellence Framework 2021 (REF2021) and embarks on another round of consultation, there is little doubt that, whatever the outcome, the expectation remains that research should be shown to be delivering impact. If anything, this expectation is only intensifying. Fuelled by the stated success of REF 2014, the appetite for impact assessment also appears – at least superficially – to be increasing internationally, albeit largely stopping short of mirroring a fully formalised REF-type model. Within this context, the UK’s Future Research Assessment Programme was recently announced, with a remit to explore revised or alternative approaches. Everything is on the table, so we are told, and the programme sensibly includes the convening of an external body of international advisors to cast their, hopefully less jaded eyes upon proceedings….”



“Rescognito is a free service for recognizing and promoting Open Research. It can be used in two ways:

1. Use Rescognito for recognition: Search for a colleague. Click to view their Open Ledger. Click the “Recognize” button displayed next to their name or publications. Award and claim CRediT for a particular publication (video explainer).

2. Use Rescognito to create free research checklists (Beta): click on https://rescognito.com/createchecklist, enter a DOI and create your own free checklist to share with colleagues….”

Can We Re-engineer Scholarly Journal Publishing? An Interview with Richard Wynne, Rescognito – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Let me say out loud what almost everyone involved in scholarly publishing knows: the transition to Open Access will not by itself significantly reduce the cost of publishing, nor is it likely to improve the culture around research incentives. Consequently, there remains a pressing need to reduce costs and improve research culture; but in ways that do not dismantle the proven — but expensive — benefits of peer review and editorial evaluation….

Despite the transition to Open Access, many researchers, librarians, and research funders continue to feel short-changed and profoundly dissatisfied….

Scholarly publishers and research funders continue to focus primarily on the transition to Open Access, but embracing a new payment model will not by itself fix customer satisfaction problems or reduce costs. At some point there will be a need to articulate a more coherent explanation of how scholarly publishers add value, and to implement efficient systems that reflect this understanding. Assertion workflows are one possible solution to this problem.”


Next Steps Toward Using CRediT for Credit | NISO website

“Ensuring that researchers get credit for all the work they do, not just for the papers they write, is essential if we are ever to move beyond the current culture of “publish or perish.” Securing funding, managing data, writing software, and more are every bit as important to the success of a research project. But these roles are typically harder to identify and, therefore, tend to be overlooked when a researcher’s work is being evaluated, for example, when they are applying for promotion or tenure or seeking funding.

The CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) initiative aims to make it easier for researchers to get the credit they deserve for all their contributions, by identifying 14 different roles that can be assigned to one or more contributors to a research project. This information can then be included in the metadata for any research output — articles, books/book chapters, datasets, etc.

The CRediT taxonomy grew out of a Wellcome Trust/Harvard University workshop in 2012, which led to a pilot project to test it out with a group of science journal editors, the results of which were reported in Nature Communications. The 14 roles that have been defined are:

Conceptualization: formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims
Data curation: management activities to annotate, scrub data, and maintain research data for initial use and later re-use
Formal analysis: application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data
Funding acquisition: getting financial support for the project leading to the publication
Investigation: conducting the research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection
Methodology: development or design of the methodology; creation of models
Project administration: management and coordination responsibility for the research activity, planning, and execution
Resources: providing study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools
Software: programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting algorithms; testing of existing code components
Supervision: oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team
Validation: verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs
Visualization: preparation, creation, and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/data presentation
Writing – original draft: preparation, creation, and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive translation)
Writing – review and editing: reparation, creation, and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision, including pre- or post-publication stages …”